Same goes for a punt that flies out of bounds. Mark it at the spot where it crosses the sideline, not where the ball lands.
That’s the question I was going to ask; how is the ball spotted on any other play when the ball carrier goes out of bounds? Apply that rule to the end zone, and if the spot is across, or even touching, the goal line, it’s a touchdown.
BobT’s post is interesting. It suggests (and I believe I’ve heard this other places, too) that the pylon itself is out-of-bounds. If Vick had touched it first, before the ball crossed the goal plane, would he have been ruled down at that point and the ball spotted based on its position at the time?
The pylon is considered to be part of the end zone.
I think that players are programmed in general to keep the ball in bounds and that intuitively they feel like they’re supposed to get the ball inside the pylon at the endzone. Even if they know the rule, in the heat of the play they forget about it.
NO!!!
The pylon is out-of-bounds. It is, however, on the goal line, so it is inherently past the “plane” of the goal line. Thus, if you touch it, you have crossed the plane with whatever touched it, and have gone out-of-bounds at that point. As the explanation mentioned in the post by Bob T says, if you are attempting a touchdown, and you hit it, you went out-of-bounds after crossing the plane, so it is a touchdown.
Now, in most cases when you see a runner attempt to score by thrusting the ball across the goal line and behind or through the pylon, the reason is that his body is not going to cross the sideline past the plane, so the only way to score will be to have the ball itself cross the plane of the goal before it goes out of bounds. Otherwise, the mark will be where the ball crosses the sideline. But if you have the ability to get a hand or foot across the plane of the goal, while the ball is still crossing the sideline short of the goal, but can cross the plane of the goal before you are down, you will have scored. Which apparently is what Mr. Vick accomplished.
The rule is not “idiotic.” It simply deals with the inherent conflict in dealing with the competing concepts of what is a touchdown; presence of the ball in the end zone or presence of the player in the end zone. When a receiver catches a ball and does the toe-tap with his feet in the end zone, the ball often never was in his possession over the box that is defined by the goal line, the side line, and the end line. But the fact he touches his feet inside the “goal” makes it a touchdown. The only difference from that scenario and the one in question is that possession already existed within the playing field, the ball has exited the playing field, and the player has left his feet and exited the playing field, so you have to decide which of the competing theories about scoring you are going to apply.
Me, I like the Rugby Football theory. Put it down on the ground or it ain’t a “touchdown”. 
It’s simple people.
Nothing is out of bounds unless contact is made with the ground.
The air is not out of bounds.
I think I’m starting to get it - except for the part about the ballcarrier having to have some part of his body over the in-bounds part of the endzone for it to be a touchdown. If contact with the ground is not made, and the endzone extends forever, why does that part matter?
I think the rule is trying to account for a player falling diagonally out of bounds, and establishes a clear criteria.
Picture a toes on the sideline catch a foot or so shy of the goal line. By falling at an angle, the reciever can get the ball past the plane of the goal line. If he can also get part of his body past the plane and in-bounds: touchdown.
The exception to that does seem to be during punts. Say for instance a punt lands on the 30 yard line just inside the out-of-bounds line (so is in fair territory) and then takes an amazing bounce and goes 20 more yards downfield, but lands just out of bounds on the 10 yard line. The ball is not placed on the 10 because that is where it touched the ground first, it is place much closer to the 30 based upon when the line Referee thinks is broke the plain.
I don’t think the rationale for the rule has been really answered. I don’t get it.
HYPO: Imagine a ball carrier takes a diagonal running leap over the sideline at the 3 yard-line. He lands with the ball crossing the “infinite” goal line, but well out-of-bounds, having no part of his body crossing the plane of the in-bounds end zone box.
What result by rule? Is this a good result? Why or why not?
-
If the ball had gone out of bounds on a punt or fumble, the spot where the ball lands out of bounds is ignored, and the ball is spotted at the 3-yard line. Is there something about the player having possession at the time that makes the hypo different?
-
By rule, I think this is not a touchdown because no part of the body crosses the plane of the in-bounds end zone box. Why should that matter? Why is it a touchdown if any part of his body, not even the ball, crosses the box plane, but not a touchdown if it doesn’t? Why is it important to have part of the body enter the box?
This isn’t the current rule, but if the goal line is truly infinite, the hypo should be considered a touchdown, shouldn’t it?
Think of it this way. If a guy is streaking down the sidelines with the ball and he extends the ball out over the sidelines while running, we do not say the player has gone out of bounds or that the play is over. The “infinite goal line” is really just an application of the same principal that exists for the whole length of the field. Whether the ball is inbounds is determined by the position of the ball carrier, not the ball. Possession + an established position inbounds by the ball carrier = a de facto “inbounds” football.
Think of it as a continuous line from the football to the point of legal contact with the field. If the ball is physically out of bounds, the position and progress of the ball are determined by the furthest point of established inbounds position by the ball carrier.
Once a player (offense, defense, special teams, whatever) has stepped out of bounds, he can’t be the next one to make a play on the ball. So a defender can’t stand out of bounds or even step out of bounds for a moment–the latter only if he ends up being the second person to touch Vick since he stepped back inbounds.
Every once in a while you’ll see this penalty called on kick returns. A defender evades a block by running around him out of bounds, then comes back inbounds to tackle the returner. It’s illegal, because the defender has effectively crossed into the carpool lane to pass by the traffic.
What you are looking for is a comprehensive, internally consistent set of rules. What the NFL has are rules designed to achieve game play that matches their philosophy.
The philosophy about scoring a touchdown is that the ball is in the end “zone”. I can stand at any other point on the field and hold the ball out of bounds and it still in play as long as I am standing inbounds. I can hold it backwards out of my own endzone and everything is fine. But I stick the ball over the opponents goal line while standing on the one, and the play ends with a TD. Anywhere else if I stand out of bounds and hold the ball over the field, it is out of bounds. But if I stand in the opponents end zone and hole the ball over the one yard line it isn’t a TD. So we already have an inconsistent set of rules.
So, once we establish that the endzone box is the target, the question becomes “how much of the ball?” The NFL decided that any part of the ball in the box constitutes a touchdown.
Then somebody does a Cris Carter catch and the NFL decides it wants to allow that because it looks cool. So, now a player in the end zone with possession of the ball is a TD, even if the ball isn’t in the box*. Which leads to the question, “how much of the player?” The NFL decided that any part of the player being in the box is enough. The odd part of the decision is that the part of the player doesn’t have to be touching the ground, but only has to be in the volume above the painted end zone.**
*unless it hasn’t crossed the “plane” of the goal line. See earlier comments about inconsistent rules.
** Carter needed to get his feet down to establish posession. Vick had already established possession.
You can see why the NFL chose “any part of the ball” and “any part of the player”, since adjudicating fractions would be awful. “any part” makes it more exciting than “all”, which is the only other feasible option.
So, once you get past the idea of internally consistent rules and see it as “a designed set of rules in support of a game philosophy”, then you can look at the philosophy and the rules make more sense.
I’m pretty sure the rule is that they can’t be the first to touch the ball. If they do it’s a 5-yard penalty for illegal touching. Tackling the ballcarrier should be fine.
That is what I was initially referring to. I believe it’s a specifically-defined instance of unsportsmanlike conduct. It’s called when the player deliberately runs out of bounds to avoid a block, regardless of whether he makes a play on the ball later on.
I’ve looked for cites in the Digest but, again, they prove unhelpful.
Actually, it’s probably becasue they’ve been playing by NCAA and high school rules most of their lives, where the rules require the ball to cross the plane inbounds if you are diving toward the side line or goalline.
No, it isn’t. It’s not touching the ball, it’s making a play on the ball. I saw this penalty called a couple weeks back in a Chargers game, and I read it a few years ago in a Football for Dummies book by Howie Long. How much of a nitpick would it be if the guy had to touch the ball? That would really only consistently apply to pass receivers. The idea, as I said earlier, is to keep defenders or special teams personnel–not receivers–from passing traffic in the carpool lane. I’m positive that this is seperate from unsportsmanlike conduct, and is the same penalty as the one involving receivers who catch a pass after coming in from out of bounds.
nfl.com currently has a video of the NFL head referee guy reviewing the Vick TD, explaining the rule.
Well, as neither of us owns an NFL rulebook we’ll be unable to settle this one authoritatively.
Football for Dummies is searchable on amazon. The only reference I was able to find was on page 50.
Do you remember the wording of the section you’re referring to?
It is only an offensive penalty. If it were a defensive penalty then it would be easy to block the defenders out of bounds effectively removing them from the pay. Especially on punts where they run down the sidelines.